Internet porn filter: what is it?

A plan by the current UK government to restrict the flow of pornographic images and video on the internet. In a speech Prime Minister David Cameron said that UK ISPs will be made to put pornography filters on to all internet connections by default. Users will then have to opt-in in order to view porn.

Internet porn filter: what does it mean for me?

If you have an existing broadband connection you won't immediately be affected. In the first instance only new customers of ISPs will have to make a choice to enable adult content via their web connection. However, in time most - although not all - UK ISPs will write to UK broadband connection owners asking them if they want adult content to be filtered out. If you have an existing internet connection expect to be contacted by the end of 2014. (See also: Group test: best tablet for children.)

Internet porn filter: what does it mean for ISPs?

Internet service providers will be forced by law to filter out legal pornography and other adult-themed web pages for all users of new broadband connections. They will then have to offer adult users of those connections the opportunity to opt in to see those pages. Most ISPs had already agreed to write to existing users and offer them the opportunity of opting in to internet filters. Those who intend to do so will undertake this task in the next year or so. Visit: Security Advisor.

Internet porn filter: how does it work?

Child-protection web filtering software is widely available for individual PCs and for home networks, but most ISPs will opt to filter at the network level. This means that sites will be blocked across the network for all user who are in the service. The software works both by black- and whitelists of known 'bad' and 'good' sites, as well as crawling the web in much the same way as do search engines, assessing the content on each page.

Network level filtering is good for ISPs as it is relatively easy for them to manage. The other option is for all an ISP's users to install a local software app that offers greater levels of customisation for the individual user.

Internet porn filter: is it a good idea?

On balance, probably not. If rolled out nationally this plan will indisputably reduce the amount of pornography consumed by the general populace. The trouble is that it is relatively easy to find a way around internet filters. The likelihood is that tech-savvy teenagers will quickly circumnavigate barriers about which their parents are smugly confident.

There are further arguments abbout civil liberties, and the way this puts the onus of policing a social issue on to ISPs. And there are plenty of people who would debate the merits of restrictiny pornography, but we suspect those questions are outside the remit of a technology website! (See also: Reference/education software reviews).

Share this article

X

Email this to a friend

Characters remaining: 337

What is A + B?

Comments

Petruza said: The great politicians of today grew up watching at porn in their teen years and masturbating as any healthy regular boy would do and they didnt even have internet And actually finding child porn today on the web is no easy task P2P networks thats other issue but website-based censorship wont do anything to stop that

Chi Am said: At this very moment of posting with no porn filter I do not see any porn popping up and attacking my senses so why porn filter and no I do not watch porn I have better things for quality time like replying to this article just like you are reading my replyI value my freedom of choice much more than porn

Coigach said: The trouble is that filtering will inevitably be relatively arbitrary and will undoubtedly end up blocking some completely-innocuous material inadvertently and some other innocuous material quite deliberately on the ground that its been deemed politically-incorrect

lily said: This is a pathetic excuse for censorship theyre using child porn as a label to hang their policy on because they know most right thinking people are against the sexual exploitation of children Problem is censorship didnt stop Savile or Catholic priests did it

Chi Am said: Rather than having people requiring to opt out of being restricted it may be more acceptable for people to be able to opt-in for restrictions as this will not hinder our freedom of choiceMy opinion is that Cameron should concentrate more in regard to the Countrys Financial Deficit and Government Officials dubious dealing rather than trying to divert the populaces attention by stirring the hornets internest

David said: What quick responses - and nice to see your name back now its not on the emails MattTo you both - no I neither believe that the only alternative to an open free-for-all is total censorship nor that my non-internet analogies to the present position re porn are fatuous - I think theyre about rightIm far from advocating a world of censorship such as China and some Middle East states try to operate I think that the kind of censorship that forces us to drive on the left side of the road in the UK and bans fighting in the streets is just what we should expect of a sensible compromise in a democratic countryBut thats just what we dont have on the web A normal family with kids and no filtering will get porn adverts served to all the family as a matter of course - it does to me and I dont need porn If someone in the family curiously or accidentally opens a porn ad then theyll be served preferentially Accidentally - yes its all too easy even as you try to avoid them to hover or click in the wrong place - even on this siteSo its simply reasonable protection to ask for an opt in for such stuff rather than an opt out another name for offering an open connection and expecting people to chase up how to avoid pornAnd the idea of freedom In a democracy freedom is solidly tied to responsibility I wont go into the rest here but protecting the nations kids as a default position is just a small part of responsible behaviour If you disagree with the axiom nothing I say will ever attach you to the idea of responsible behaviour

Matt Egan said: David if I might say so your analogies are a particularly fatuous set of analogies By your reckoning the situation as it exists today on the Internet is akin to a world on which children are blasted with porn every time they open their doors I dont recognise that picture And you are entirely entitled to proselytise about freedom or otherwise but theres no mention of that in this piece For the record I didnt say filtering was a bad idea I said this plan was a bad idea I think every parent should filter But I do recognise that it is in each parents gift to decide what their child is exposed to I dont believe that it is the governments job to make ISPs police what children are looking at But I would accept that if I thought it would help It wont tech savvy kids will get around the web filtering their parents blithely trust and dont understand almost as quickly as porn sites will get around the filter Criminal behaviour will still be illegal and largely policed The government will have played to a gallery ignorant enough not to recognise the governments own ignorance Far better but harder and more expensive would be to educate users about web filtering how to use it its limitations Perhaps offer a free client to all parents of schoolchildren Far easier to make a speech that changes almost nothing but garners lots of headlines Oh and makes consenting adults feel ashamed for using pornography

John said: So you think it is wrong and naughy of people to want full freedom So are you saying we should have full censorship of everything Dont worry the way everything is going you will be in your utopia soon

David said: Hmm Filterings a bad idea because savvy kids can always find a work-around So porn mags should be freely available in any shops because even if theyre restricted kids will find a way to get them And personal services ads should be freely shown anywhere because its up to parents to make sure that kids are kept from seeing them And X-rated hard porn amp ultra-violent moviesI dont think so The idea of total freedom being the only desirable state for the internet is illogical and maybe even highly political - unless the same applies to all other information and entertainment sources The laws that ALL countries have to protect the vulnerable should apply exactly equally to the net Arguments that such safeguards would reduce the whole web to the lowest common denominator are spurious - it would instead raise the protection to the most effective levelI think the real case for people wanting full freedom is that a lot of badly-behaving adults viewed from their own professed standards want to be naughty with no chance of being caught by those they profess a different standard to - in other words its a charter to be two-faced and hypocritical Then thats always been the norm hasnt it

Smart home- or wearable tech: which is more likely to benefit your digital life this year?

I'm more likely to buy smart home- than wearable tech this yearI'm more likely to buy wearable- than smart home tech this yearI'll probably buy both smart home- and wearable tech this yearI'm unlikely to buy smart home- or wearable tech this yearNot sure/don't know